Friday, March 4, 2011

Dearborn Mayor John O'Reilly: Rant Against Acts 17

This is what happens when Nabeel and I haven't had enough sleep.

DISCLAIMER: This is not meant to be a depiction of actual events. It is merely a parody of the Dearborn arrest of Christian missionary group Acts 17. We never were informed of what happened behind closed doors when we were arrested, but it's our opinion there was some planning going on.

48 comments:

hello, david, it is very shameful that you resort to these types of antics...... its make it difficult for us to share the "Truth," with others....please, for the love of the,"All Mighty," grow up and be more professional...... people look up to you and you are unfortunately creating division, hatred, animosity, enmity, and racismplease be more tactful,,,,,

Romans 13:1-4 1 Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.

David and Nabeel, here is my question for you? Do you view the Dearborn Mayor and the police department as "minister of God".

Jem said: "hello, david, it is very shameful that you resort to these types of antics"

Wow! Jem came back again! Remember Jem, everyone? he's the one who condemned us after our arrests and accused us of every vile thing he could think of, until the footage was released and proved our innocence.

Then Jem returned when someone tried to blow up a mosque in Dearborn. Jem said that the attack was our fault, and that our criticisms of Dearborn had led to terrorism! Unfortunately for Jem, the terrorist turned out to be a Sunni Muslim, acting out of hatred for Shias.

And now Jem returns again. To apologize? No, to condemn us once again! It seems Jem only visits out site to look for something to complain about, only comments when he finds something to complain about. I'll be sure to take Jem's opinion for what it's worth.

I think you're misapplying Romans 13. We live in a representative democracy, which means that the government is for the people and by the people. O'Reilly is an elected official. He answers to us, not the other way around. He's a public servant. If we're not pleased with his work, we get to speak out and choose another official. Thus, U.S. citizens are a higher authority than a city mayor. Similarly, the Constitution (which O'Reilly repeatedly violated) is a higher authority than a mayor. But the Constitution doesn't have a mouth. People have to point out when it's being violated. Following your reasoning, we should never speak against any injustice committed by leaders. But that's just false, and it certainly has nothing to do with Paul's intent in Romans. If you believe Romans 13 declares that all governments are established by God, then you must believe that God established our democratic system, and therefore the rule of people like you and me. As leaders of our country, then, I think we should all declare Mayor O'Reilly unfit for office. And in fact, we have the power to do this, since we live in a democracy.

I also think you're misinterpreting Romans 12. Do you really think that "Bless, and do not curse" means, "Never speak against anyone, or point out injustice"? If so, you must believe that Jesus was the greatest sinner of all, since he constantly pointed out injustice (even in leaders, which would show further conflict with your interpretation of Romans 13). Paul simply says that you don't call down curses on people. We haven't done that. We're pointing out injustice, which the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, consistently demands of us.

I suspect Elijah the prophet and Paul the apostle are in closer agreement with each other than you are with either of them on this point. Scripture cannot be broken. I prefer to follow them as they followed Christ.

Character builder. Did Paul exert his position as a Roman citizen in Acts 22 to receive the rights granted to him by the Roman government? Is that not what David and Nabeel did? Moreover if David and Nabeel exert their position as American citizens in order for others to spread the gospel freely is that not a good thing. Keep up the good work David and Nabeel.

Well, I hope you aren't planning on returning to Dearborn for the next festival. Do you seriously think anyone is going to want to talk to you after you likened their mayor to Hitler? Not that O'Reilly is awesome or anything, but if the Muslims in Dearborn see this video, sharing the Gospel with them will be pretty hard.

GAP said: "GAP said: "Do you seriously think anyone is going to want to talk to you after you likened their mayor to Hitler?"

From what I've heard, many Muslims in Dearborn aren't fond of O'Reilly or the Police Department. I think that's part of the reason O'Reilly and the Dearborn PD are trying so hard to win the favor of Muslims.

If Muslims are going to be upset with us over something, it would most likely be over our criticism of Islam and Muhammad. Comparatively few Muslims care about Western political campaigns.

I don't think David was comparing the Mayor of Dearborn to Hitler. He as making a point using satire. After it was the Dearborn Four who were unjustly arrested and locked up for exercising the 1st Amendment Rights. And it seems the Mayor of Dearborn does not understand this.

Dr. Wood, Character Builder is right. Even in a democracy, citizens are expected to respect offices of authority. The government you describe strikes me more as anarchy, than as a republic with duly elected judges and legislators.

Even in a democracy, we are commanded to be respectful of human rulers. I agree that we are obligated to call wrong acts for what they are, but even we can do that without being mocking and derisive.

Under the law of Christ, your wife is submissive to you. It would be reasonable to conclude that you occasionally squabble. How do you want her to talk to you when she is angry? Even if she has every reason to be angry, you want her to be respectful.

Character Builder is right about every verse he used, and I would like to remind you about one more verse that I feel that you are in danger of neglecting, and that is of the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with Satan about the body of Moses

Jude 9 "But even the arch-angel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

I'm only saying this because you seem to have an honest heart, and you want to obey your Heavenly Father.

Donna60 said: "Citizens are expected to respect offices of authority."

This is simply false. When the King of England violated the basic rights of Americans, they rebelled against him. America was founded by men and women who refused to honor leaders who trample on the rights of their citizens. But this is far from anarchy. This would only lead to anarchy if citizens didn't respect ANY leaders (even competent ones). But no one is advocating this (except, perhaps, anarchists).

The founding fathers then established a list of rights that any U.S. leader MUST honor. It seems you're suggesting that no matter how much an elected U.S. official tramples on the rights of citizens, lies about them, or abuses his power, we must show the utmost respect in response. I'm confused about this.

To illustrate my confusion here, let me give a historical example. Suppose we're talking about Adolf Hitler. Are you saying that, if we were in Nazi Germany, you and I would be morally obligated to show him the utmost respect, and to obey him in everything? Please clarify, so I can understand what you're saying.

Donna60 said: "Under the law of Christ, your wife is submissive to you. It would be reasonable to conclude that you occasionally squabble. How do you want her to talk to you when she is angry? Even if she has every reason to be angry, you want her to be respectful."

Do you regard the situation in Dearborn as a mere "squabble"? They threw us in jail for having a peaceful discussion at a public festival.

If I ever treat my wife like that, I hope she responds to me appropriately. But I don't think that speaking to me calmly and respectfully (after having her thrown in jail) would be enough. Screaming might be more appropriate in such a situation.

On a related note, I think you're being selective in your reading of Scripture. Wouldn't you say that Jews had a duty to be respectful to their religious leaders? I'm interested in your response, since I'd like to discuss some passages where Jesus addresses these leaders.

BTW, are you really comparing (1) speaking against an elected public official in a representative democracy to (2) speaking against an angelic being?

One of the things I so much admire about you and Nabeel and the whole Acts17 team is how you can continue gentle humor after all you've been through for Jesus Christ. I'm still ROFL about the video and even more about the twisted nonsense from jem, GAP, donna60, et al.

The Living God in Jesus Christ has not given us a spirit of fear -nor a spirit of acquiescence, nor a spirit of dhimmitude. THANK YOU for not "letting go" of this issue. We are at war. One of the ways we win is by laughing at dhimmitude and by ROFL at Islam. Islam BEGS for ridicule.

Your video is the best "send-up" of any "master race" that I've seen since the days of Spike Jones.

Tom said: "I'm still ROFL about the video and even more about the twisted nonsense from jem, GAP, donna60, et al."

I would agree that virtually everything Jem says is "twisted nonsense." However, GAP, donna60, and Characterbuilder are in a different category. I disagree with them, but I can see where they're coming from.

David,I support you,you did a stupendous job.I was dying of laughter.In the comment section of the jihadwatch article "Sign of an Embryonic Spine Detected in Britain"(the 4th comment),I wrote about your Hitler video and added a link so others will see it,plus the info to go to answeringmuslims.com.

I have the idea "I must never assume anything"in other words I must never assume the others who read jihadwatch automatically know about answeringmuslims.com

David, Thank you for disagreeing with me. The one thing that separates people of God from people of the world is that people of God keep talking to each other. Talking to each other is such a noble form of love; and after all, "in the beginning was the Word!"

Of course I wouldn't obey Hitler--at least I hope that I would have the moral courage to disobey Hitler. I hope my faith in God would supercede my fears, and I wouldn't be ashamed before my church or my God, that I had merely "followed orders."

But you probaby remember that Peter and John were ordered by the Sanhedrin, in Acts 4:18 not to preach the gospel. Christ compelled them to do so, and the second time they were ordered before the Sanhedrin, Peter and John reminded the Sanhedrin that they must obey God rather than man (Acts 5:27-29)

On the other hand, the apostles never resisted rulers unless it was directly commanded by God, and they never mocked them. Even Paul, apologized, when it came to the high priest Ananias.

When Ananias ordered Paul to be struck in Acts 23, Paul called him a white-washed wall, and invoked God to strike him. However when Paul was told that Ananias was the high-priest, Paul said "Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people."(v 5)

Ananias wasn't Paul's High Priest. However, he must have been thinking specifically of Ananias in terms of Ananias' role in the leadership of Jerusalem.

David,As far as your examples from the history of our country, I should tell you that, because I am from the restoration movement, I only regard scripture as authority for my spiritual protocols.

My countrymen have done any number of things that disobeyed scripture. I see no productive result for rehashing the "rebellion of the colonists." Needless to say, I love my country. On the other hand, none of the forefathers of this country, act as my spiritual guides.

I hope it is never true, but you might destroy your wife's confidence and well-being, far worse than any prison cell on earth. Of course, your wife loves you and forgives you, because you, ultimately have a loving relationship with each other. I'm just suggesting that more-than-likely, in the activities of daily living, you have crushed her spirit in ways far more brutal than prison bars.

Screaming is only going to make matters worse for her. Women need to be quieted by love. They don't want to win battles by screaming. It is only going to make her suffering worse, if she is driven to that.

Which leads me to why I am applying Jude 9. In 1 Corinthians 11:10, there is odd little phrase there, that for a long time made me curious. And it was largely ignored, because the bible-classes I was in was so busy debating head covering that no one paid much attention to it:

"Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." (1 Cor. 11:10)

Because I really don't understand what the angels have to do with head gear, unless the application of Jude 8-9 applies.

In other words, since even angels are expected to be respectful to authority, even including Satan, then women are expected to respect the authority God has placed them under, which is their husbands.

Jude isn't just talking about celestial beings. He talks about people who reject authority. Obviously, Michael resisted Satan. However, even Michael was obligated to talk to Satan in a respectful way.

So far as you fighting for your rights in a free country, I am proud of you for doing this. Paul did the same thing in more than one occasion, invoking his rights as a citizen of Rome. I am also glad that you are providing a court case that highlights the rights of American citizenship, even in an era of political correctness, that tolerates every indecent act, except thoughts that are preceived as bigoted, by the perverse. And you should be thanked, and praised for that as well. But you should be careful of mocking our elected officials, and I believe that you will be, because you have the heart of God.

Let's put it this way. The US supreme courth just ruled in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church. That was a major victory for them, and for the US constitution. On the other hand, how many souls do you believe they will bring to Christ?

Hi David, i hope you don't mind me posting my article that relates to this topic here. It has been almost three months since i wrote anything and I am trying to get some people aware of the self hosted version of my blog which is an Islamic Learning Center for Infidels Everywhere.

Feeling the Bite and Sting of Multicultural Relativism and Islam by Damon Whitsell

Also , THANKS for getting brother ceeker on the show tonight. I wrote to Haifa asking her to take a look at him to consider interviewing him and it looks like the Lord kinda went around her or rather through you, to get brother Edwards on. I knew from the moment I seen brother ceeker he was very valuable to the body of Christ and Muslims trapped in Islam and he understands his role as an ambassador. I was even more impressed when I talk to the brother and he told me about some of what the Spirit was putting on his heart. THANK YOU BROTHER.

I always gett surprised when sommeone picks out of context Bible sentences and trie to builde entire arguments based on them and ignoring not onlie thate context, butt also the other texts in it thate show other dimenstions off the realityy...

yes, the Bible sais thate one shoulde respect authorities; yes, the Bible portraites people, including Jesus, denoucing the authorities thate, eben when they habe placed in power by God, have corrupted thair position and power... as a matter of fact, denoucing authorities thate have followed this pathe is the best way to respect them...

anouce and denounce: this are the 2 key wordes in the Christian missionaruy activity... and whate a better way to denouce the abuses off an authority thate is falling to respect its God's given place than laughing att them? ridendo castigat moris...

finally: when a clip like these whithe the now famous Khadafi's words "Shiber Shiber, Beit Beit, Dar Dar, Zenga Zenga"? Maybe after this civil war in Lybia ends?

"I have the idea "I must never assume anything"in other words I must never assume the others who read jihadwatch automatically know about answeringmuslims.com"

Minoria, that's funny because just a few hours ago I was also visiting Jihadwatch and noticed that they don't currently have a link to Answering Muslims, even though I seem to remember that Spencer has mentioned David & Nabeel in positive light on a few occasions. I was actually about to contact Jihadwatch and recommend that they add this blog. But I decided not to because I'm not sure if David and Nabeel would have appreciated that. I'm pretty sure that they are glad if people mention their blog on comments, forums, etc. on other sites but I still thought that perhaps they want to have control over the more "official" linkings from various sites. (Nevertheless, I think a link from Jihadwatch's main page would be good both in terms of page rank and potential new readers.)

Also, now that we are on the subject of promoting Acts 17, perhaps David or Nabeel can answer this. There have been few occasions when I've noticed that featuring Acts 17 would fit the profile of some radio program or podcast and I've thus contacted them and recommended you as potential guests/interviewees. I'm assuming that you see this type of thing as positive and don't mind if I continue to do this (within reason of course). I just want to see more people get to know your ministry.

Christians do not blindly do whatever they are told. At times they must refuse to submit to the will of others even if they have positions of authority and this was true of first-century Christians when the apostles were ordered to stop preaching. They did not cave in to the high priest and other authority figures who were part of the Sanhedrin. They did not abandon right conduct in order to conform to human authority.

"27 The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28 “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”

29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings!"

Also, Proverbs 29:25 warns us: "Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe."

Regarding Romans 13 I had written an article in avraidire.com where I said that it was written when Christians were legally permited to worship since the Roman authorities thought they were a Jewish sect and the Jews were exempt from showing reverence to the statue of the Roman Emperor.

I also added that Romans 13 does not exclude non-violent resistance to evil governments(which includes not paying taxes,er jizyah)

That is an argument Muslim use,that one has to pay jizyah because of Romans 13,as a good Christian.In other words financially support an anti-human rights government,that would mean also supporting an apartheid governement,or Jim Crow one.

I gave the examples of Christians who have resited evil governments:Sophie Scholl(against Hitler),Desmond Tutu,Reverend King,Dietrich Bonhoeffer(against Hitler),Harriet Beecher Stowe,Barolome de la Casas,Abbe Gregoire(responsible for the abolition of slavery in the French colonies):

People might need a little added context for this video. This clip has been used perhaps a dozen times by various people who overlay pseudo-dialogue to satirize one or another person, often to hilarious effect. Nabeel and David have done a brilliant job of adding to the growing comedic tradition. More important, they probably had fun making it. I think God is sometimes more present in what we call fun than in what we call preaching. I'll bet David and Nabeel know that as well as anyone.

Someone else used the same clip, with different dialogue overlaid, to portray the "downfall" of the Little Green Footballs website, a previously conservative, previously Islam-critical website that turned 180 degrees and started slandering conservatives and Islam-critics, including Robert Spencer. So someone who used to visit the LGF website, probably someone who was banned from there for not being sycophantic enough, decided to use the clip to satirize the behavior of the man who runs LGF, (represented by Hitler in the clip) and also the behavior of his most sycophantic commenters (represented by the officers). Here's that version:

When you know that the clip has a long comedic tradition behind it, you realize that you cannot accuse David and Nabeel of really equating the mayor with Hitler. The humor consists precisely in the exaggeration involved. David and Nabeel surely wouldn't have made (or remade) the clip if they weren't aware of the exaggeration and how funny it is. But the exaggeration also wouldn't be funny unless there were at least some truth in it. After all, it's not that there is no relation whatsoever between the behavior of Hitler and the behavior of the mayor. The relation is simply that the mayor is a politician who is abusing his power. In that sense, there is a partial resemblence to a dictator, a lawless tyrant. And that's the little nugget of truth that makes the exaggeration hilarious.

That video was really funny! Nice job with it; greatest special effects ever:) Also, it's kind of mean for people to be judging Act17 about trying to laugh at an uncomfortable situation! Just because we're Christians doesn't mean we can't be funny! If we always take EVERYTHING seriously people will think we're freaks... who wants to be part of a religion like that? One where you can't laugh and people harshly judge you at every turn. Besides, I thought Christians weren't supposed to judge. Am I missing something?

Oh I can see why jem is so very very upset. it was basicaly the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, which just dont sit well with taquia taquia taquia. having watched all the previous videos every single statement in this video can be found somewhere in the others. so jem the only thing you could possibly be upset over is the fact that the truth was put to a darn funny video clip. build a bridge and get over yourself.

Women in Islam

American Freedom Law Center

America

The Truth about CAIR

FAQ Page

On this website, we engage Muslims and the foundations of Islam without trying to be "PC". We feel honesty is better than disguised language. As you can read on our FAQ, this is out of love, not out of hatred. Thanks, and we're looking forward to seeing your comments!